2009 PLP 1073 (YLR)

MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.

The petitioner has invoked Constitutional Jurisdiction assailing the order passed by the Courts below in Family Appeal No.11 of 2005 and Family Suit No.386 of 2003 whereby the suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance and return of Jahez articles filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was decreed. The facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent No.1 was married to the petitioner in the year 1994 for consideration of dower amount of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) remained unpaid. Out of the wedlock baby Javeria Shoaib was born on 2-3-1996, life between the parties became miserable. On account of differences between the parties the petitioner snatched ornaments of gold from respondent No.1 and sold out the same worth Rs.1,250,000 which are still lying in the house of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 left the house of the petitioner, in the middle of the year 2003, claimed, dissolution of marriage dowry articles as well as maintenance for herself and daughter. The petitioner denied the allegations in written statement contended that the dower amount was fixed at Rs.50,000 out of which 50% was prompt rest was deferred paid in the shape of gold bangles. It was also averred that the respondent No.1 had removed jewelry, cash when deserted his house. On appraisal of the evidence led by the parties suit filed by the respondent No.1 was decreed. I have heard Mr. Sathi M. Ishaq learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Azizuddin Qureshi learned counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner did not contest the matter in respect of dissolution of marriage contended that there is gross misreading of evidence in respect of the entitlement of the respondent No.1 of Jehaz articles has depicted in the dowry list exhibit P/2 worth of Rs. 2,50,

000. It is next urged that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the maintenance granted by the Courts below granted to his daughter Javeria now aged about 14 years @ Rs.5000 per month and shall continue to pay the same until she attains the majority according to law of land. So far as the maintenance of respondent No.1 is concerned the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the same adjudicated by the Courts below on the date of dissolution of marriage 31st March, 2005 and for Iddat period and had agreed to deposit the same with the Nazir of the learned Family Court. On appraisal of record it appears that the learned Family Judge had decided the issue involved in favour of the respondent No.1 pertaining to the dissolution of marriage, return of the dowry article, maintenance whereas the First Appellate Court through the impugned judgment decided the issue regarding the dowry article in favour of the petitioner, and maintained the quantum of award of maintenance by the trial Court to the respondents Nos. 1 and

2. During the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioner has undertaken to pay the maintenance due to the respondents at the rate settled by the learned Family Judge and had agreed to pay maintenance of minor Javeria. In view of the above, position impugned judgment does not call for interference, C.P. No. S-28/2008 stands disposed off accordingly. H.B.T./M-18/K Order accordingly.